Yuval Harari and the AI Death Cult

I want to say one more thing about Yuval Noah Harari before I move on to other things. 

In one of his lectures he says: 

"Netflix tells us what to watch, and Amazon tells us what to buy. Eventually within ten or twenty or thirty years, such algorithms could also tell you what to study at college, and where to work, and whom to marry, and even for whom to vote."

Comments: He presents this like it's a good thing, but it's really about controlling people, eliminating consciousness, and destroying the human race. Because what ultimately makes people different from, and arguably better than, animals and machines, is our ability to reason, to think, to ask questions, and to make conscious choices. 

If you remove those elements, you get a person who no longer has free agency. Instead, you have a person who becomes the perfect consumer, the perfect conformist, the perfect dutiful robot who does what they are told and doesn't ask why. 

In another presentation, he talks about his experience of finding out he was gay, how long he struggled with it and how emotionally difficult it was for him, and how much better it would have been if he had simply been told he was gay from day one, basically saying that if only the technology had existed to determine a person's sexual preference at birth, the world would be a better place. 

In both of these examples he is suggesting that it is better to be told by some authority what you are, rather than having the freedom to figure it out for yourself and to ultimately make your own choices.

His philosophy embraces the rejection of free will, in favor of determinism, but since Harari also rejects God, his source of determinism comes not from God, or from the natural order of the universe, or even from reality itself, but rather is coming from Artificial Intelligence. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what that sounds like to me, he wants to remove the authority from God and from people, and to give it to AI. 

But the thing is AI is programmed by people, and AI is owned and ultimately controlled by people, the people who own all the data and who have all the money, who have their own political biases, conflicts of interest, and agendas, so its content is not neutral or objective, and is severely open to manipulation, and even hacking. It sounds like these people who agree with Harari, namely members of the World Economic Forum and advocates of technocracy and transhumanism, it's like they are some kind of weird cult that doesn't believe in God, but they seem to regard AI as something to replace God, something that will be the ultimate authority, and judge, and shaper of reality and determination of everything that a person is and does. 

So what happens if everything you do is determined by a computer algorithm? A computer program tells you what to buy, what to eat, what books to read, what to study in school, what career path to follow, who to be friends with, who to date, where to live, what to do, and what to think. When you take away a persons freedom to make their own choices and to think for themselves, the person becomes a slave to their "destiny", they become like a robot, a member of a hive, or a brainwashed member of a cult, with no consciousness of their own. And that's the society that Harari and the World Economic Forum he represents are seeking to create. 

It's basically Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. 

If you never read that book, or watched the movie, it's not a utopia, it's a dystopia. It's not about genuinely making the world a better place to live in for all, it's not about empowering people, it's about consolidating power, and increasing control of the many by the few. It's kind of like how things are now, but only 100 times worse. 

In case you didn't notice, I'm not a fan of Yuval Noah Harari. Although I haven't read his books yet, I've watched numerous interviews and have read several articles highlighting what he believes, and what he stands for, and I can honestly say that not only am I opposed to everything this guy represents, I truly believe that despite how supposedly smart and well read and how highly regarded he is by much of the global elite, I think my problem with him is not simply a matter of ideological difference, it's more so coming from my intuitive observation that this person is severely mentally ill, as in being a bona fide psychopath, and could quite possibly be a victim of mind control, and maybe even demonic possession. 

You know, after all he is a gay man, and gay men who engage in anal sex, are prone to contracting anal parasites, which from an occult perspective is said to be a potential pathway for possession, which typically manifests as corresponding symptoms of mental illness, lack of empathy, the rejection of the true and the beautiful, and the embrace of ugly perversions. 

I know that sounds crazy, especially if you don't believe in occult phenomena, but I'm just calling it like I see it, that this guy is clearly a very spiritually damaged person, and it shows most dramatically in his lack of empathy, and his egomaniac hubris. 

What makes his ideology so dangerous though is that Harari has the backing of extreme wealth, he appears to be one of the masterminds, or at least the primary intellectual spokesperson for the New World Order, and there is nothing more dangerous than a cabal of wealthy psychopaths, who not only reject God, because they think they are above God, but who also have the hubris to reject humanity, too, because they believe that they have the intellectual superiority to engineer something better. That because they've got AI and 5G and are soon to unleash an army of humanoid robots into the marketplace, who don't think, who don't reason, who don't question, and so they become perfect slaves, which is their ideal worker.

It's the ultimate act of egomaniac hubris, not only do they reject God, but they seek to usurp the power of God, by becoming gods themselves, and eventually eliminating the vast majority of humans by replacing us with AI powered robots engineered in a lab, and perhaps keeping a few of us around as genetically modified androids who have lost the ability to think, who they keep as pets and for other amusements, or perhaps to help supervise the robots when they end up not performing completely up to standards. 

It sounds like science fiction, but it's actually very real. These people are completely insane and they have so much money that they think they have the power to remake the world in their own image, even if it destroys the world in the process. This doesn't have to happen. People can resist, put up a fight, and stop it from being implemented, but the fact is this is definitely what they are planning, and Harari is the main spokesman for this agenda, which pretty much sounds like it's some kind of an AI death cult, promising immortality and superhuman abilities for the chosen ones of the elect, and death and enslavement for everybody else.

Timelessness

What is timelessness?

It comes down to perception. How fast or how slow time appears to move, or not move, depends entirely upon your perception of it. Awareness shapes reality. But what shapes awareness? Like dreams, it may seem like a few hours have passed, but in actuality, or rather on the objective level of ordinary reality, perhaps only a few seconds have passed.

It is possible for a few seconds to feel like a few years, and for a few years to feel like a few seconds. An entire lifetime looked back in retrospect from the perspective of old age, viewed as a memory, may feel like seconds, like many years compressed into a few seconds, highly dense, concentrated, instant knowing, super fast data compression, that is memory, and without memory there would be no awareness of time.

Timelessness is the perception of stopping time, or of time moving very slowly, or perhaps so fast, that it appears to stand still.

What remains is the now, containing future and past, overlapping the present, not as separations in time, but one vast experience of potential energy, of what happened, what could happen and changes along the way, modifications of actuality, modifications of memory, modifications of perspective.

What has happened has happened. Can't undo anything, ever, just as the blowing of the wind, or lightning striking, cannot be undone, but you can change the way you see it, the way you remember it, what you look at, what aspects you focus on, what you consider important or unimportant; that is entirely changeable, alterable, malleable.

The experience of timelessness removes the boundaries separating the importance between yesterday and tomorrow. They are like wind currents and waves in the sea, changes of direction and velocity, like boundaries on the map; countries and capitals; points of reference useful for navigating the world in abstraction.

Memories are a lot like dreams; phantoms, yes it really happened but, after the fact, looking back, it's like a shadow. The reality of it has evaporated, has become as seemingly intangible as the wind.

We have time to measure our lives, to give us a sense of order and coherence, and a feeling of permanence and control, but ultimately the actual essential experience exists in a state of timelessness, real life lived in the now, what we experience in any given moment without regard to past or future.

You read this now. Ten minutes later. Tomorrow. Next year. Whenever. It doesn't matter. If you are here, whenever you are here, reading this, you have just transcended the barriers of time. Congratulations: you are a time traveler! Different times, different positions in space, and yet we are both perceiving it as happening now.

It's Good to Have a Bullshit Detection Kit

In an article I recently read on disinfo.com, which explored the possibility of Charles Manson being a Zen Master, I found this reader's comment in response to it exceptionally enlightening:

Buddhist koans challenge conventional wisdom in order to expand our insight into the human condition.

Sociopaths do it to avoid responsibility and--maybe more importantly--establish Alpha male dominance over others by confounding them with bullsh*t.

I thought that was very interesting, and the second sentence in particular is a really good observation that could also be applied, not just to sociopaths, but potentially to anyone using cryptic language, or who is overly vague and non-specific; as if speaking in riddles and koans is the hallmark of wisdom, but in actuality the person could just be confounding you with their bullshit, being intentionally obscure because it adds to their guru mystique, making them appear wiser than they actually are.

The less you say, the more you may appear to know. The more you say, the less you may appear to know. That's because if you are specific, any errors in your thinking will be more visible to detection. And if you are vague, there is less to refute.

What better way to avoid answering a question then to claim "there is no answer," especially if presented with an aura of expounding some deep philosophical truth. It's a con man's trick, an act of subterfuge, hiding the fact that you don't know shit, but you're fronting as if you do.

Some people use mysterious language to make themselves appear wiser and more powerful than they actually are. Which is not to say that all riddles and koans are bullshit, or that there is no value in retaining an element of mystery, but just that you need to be cautious, because sometimes it's hard to know which is wisdom and which is bullshit posing as wisdom under a veil of mystery, especially if you don't know the person, have never met the person, have no way of knowing if they actually live in a wise manner and practice what they preach, or if it's just theoretical words on the screen not grounded in real experience, that sound really wise but aren't really.

In other words, just because someone looks like a Zen master, with a long beard, crazy eyes, and shit eating grin, doesn't mean they are; nor is the liberal use of riddles and koans proof of enlightenment.

This is a main reason why I stopped reading and taking seriously spiritual advice type blogs, especially those concerning Zen, Taoism, and New Age spirituality, because I have found that many of them, though not all, are written by people with wannabe guru complexes, which I find annoying, who seem to believe that because they call themselves this or that, purporting to represent a particular wisdom tradition, that anything they say, too, will be wise, and the more obscure their insights, and the more they speak in riddles and in vague non-specific generalities, the more enlightened they will appear to be.

I'm not saying this is the case with all "spiritual advice" type blogs, but I would say that it does pay to be extra cautious when dealing with anyone who communicates in an exceptionally obscure manner, because rather than communicating wisdom, it very well could just be bullshit disguised as something profound, but actually when you dig really deep you'll find that there isn't anything there of any real meaningful substance at all.

In other words, it's good to have a bullshit detection kit.

For a related post, and more information to help you build your own bullshit detection kit, please see: Fake Gurus Versus Real Gurus.

And also: The Difference Between Experience and Theory, which could have just as easily been called "The Difference Between Knowing and Believing."

Pilgrimage as Purification

"The more difficult the journey, the greater the depth of purification."

This is an old Tibetan saying recorded by Austrian mountaineer Heinrich Harrer in his WWII era travel memoir Seven Years in Tibet. I read the book a few years ago, and it stands out in my mind as being one of my all time favorite adventure travel books.

I bring it up because a couple nights ago I watched the movie adaptation, starring Brad Pitt, which is not nearly as good as the book, but being a fan of mountaineering movies in general and anything to do with Tibet, it was worth watching again for that reason alone. Well, this was the second time I saw the film, the first time was shortly after its theatrical debut back in the late '90s. So it had been awhile, was almost like seeing it for the first time. And like I said, while I enjoyed the book version very much, the movie version, though it has some merit, is not really anything special, but on this second viewing one line stood out to me that I found thought provoking enough to write it down in my journal and share it with you here.

"The more difficult the journey, the greater the depth of purification."

I thought that was an interesting line. It was in reference to the fact that the Tibetan people as a whole, both peasant and priest, were culturally orientated toward going on regular pilgrimages. It was believed that the act of pilgrimage, walking long distances over difficult terrain to visit sacred sites, while enduring numerous obstacles along the way, would help cleanse one's sins. That the more difficult the journey, the more rewarding that journey would be. So it was like an act of atonement, a way of finding forgiveness and consolation and strength in moving forward, helping one to discard, however large or small, the bonds of guilt and grief and discontent accumulated from past misdeeds and mistakes.

Though I suppose that's true of all pilgrimages, not just Tibetan, about it being an act of purification; that regardless of which spiritual or religious point of view one is aligned with, a pilgrimage is fundamentally about seeking clarity through the purification of negative thoughts.

Kind of reminded me of the Catholic concept of purgatory, that intermediary stage between death and resurrection, except that the pilgrimage is a sort of a purgatory one experiences while still alive. You could say that it's a way of dying, without dying, to be reborn again in this life; where pilgrimage provides a means of purification along the journey to enlightenment.

As a hiker, who also considers myself to be a spiritually minded person, what I find exceptionally interesting about pilgrimage, is that not only does it involve travel and adversity as a means of purification, but that walking in particular is considered an essential component of it. And I think that is not simply because of the fact that walking is more challenging, particularly because it is slower, and a greater hardship if you must carry your own gear, but that it is also because of the very specific state of mind that walking tends to inspire.

For instance, walking is more humbling, because you are more vulnerable, being momentarily homeless, living out of a bag, perhaps sleeping outside, and at the mercy of the hospitality of strangers. But another reason is that walking is essentially a moving meditation, which helps to ground you to the immediacy of the ever changing landscape of the moment; where there is struggle, but also exceptional clarity and mindfulness which makes it all the more conducive to the task of mental and spiritual purification.

As Within, So Without

"One has to investigate the principle in one thing or one event exhaustively...Things and the self are governed by the same principle. If you understand one, you understand the other, for the truth within and the truth without are identical." -- Er Cheng Yishu, 11th century

For many years I have shared a similar perspective to the one expressed in this quote, but have struggled to put this philosophy into words. The idea that there are universal truths which can be applied to all areas of knowledge and to all circumstances of life. And the idea that these universal truths can be translated into both complicated theory and simple common sense.

That all things can be viewed from both a literal and a metaphorical perspective, and that all material truths, regarding the laws and processes of nature, have a corresponding psychological and philosophical truth. That the workings of nature, reflect the inner workings of the mind, and both the mind and the body reflect the workings of nature.

For instance, take constipation, having difficult or infrequent bowel movements. Constipation is essentially a blockage of energy. The bowel is like a river. Constipation is like a dammed up river. What prevents a river from flowing? Thick murky sediment. Pollution. Stagnation. Obstruction. An excessive narrowing or constriction of the channels. And what kills the fish in the river? Lack of food. Lack of oxygen. Lack of space. Starvation, dehydration, and asphyxiation. The inability to eat, breath, absorb nutrients, and expel waste.

Constipation is a physical ailment, but there is also a corresponding constipation of the mind, feeling mentally and emotionally and creatively blocked, being rigid and close minded, inflexible in your thinking. Having a closed heart full of hatred and prejudice is also much like a clogged pipe, or a damned, stagnant, dying river. Like having your blood circulation cut off. If it goes on for too long, you'll lose a limb, or you'll have a heart attack or stroke, or you'll die. The whole entire body is like a flowing river of water and blood. When it is healthy, it is in movement, flowing, recirculating, revitalizing energy.

Same is true of the quality of our life, whether we are happy, whether we are feeling vibrant, energetic, enthusiastic, optimal, or whether we feel like we are missing something, like we are stuck, all depend on whether the river of our life is flowing healthfully, or if its blocked and filled with muck. In other words, there are correspondences to be found by observing the laws of nature, that may be applied to our own lives, and to the systems and organizations that govern our lives.

Assuming that there are universal principles of truth that can be applied to all things, I'm thinking that in testing the validity of any system or theory, it helps to look at it through the perspective of different circumstances, and different fields of knowledge, to determine whether the principle still holds true, and whether it is equally valid within as it is without. If there is any incongruity between the two, between the inner and the outer, and the philosophy and practice, it suggests that there is an error somewhere in your system or theory, that is damming up your river, so to speak.

In other words, a universal truth must be true in both theory and practice, and it must be equally true when applied to any subject. So for instance, the conditions and underlying principles that contribute to health and disease, should be reflected in all things, not just the body, the mind, and nature, but also in society, technology, business, relationships, and the management and organization of systems of all kinds.

*Note: This is all very rough. I have more to say about this, and not sure if I said this as clearly as I could have. It's way too hot to write. The desert is killing me. I'll have to revisit this topic at a cooler time.

Creativity

Creativity is very much connected to health and confidence.

When I'm feeling creative, I'm feeling strong and confident in myself. I'm not looking to others to tell me what to do, or to give their approval of what I'm doing. When I am creative I am my own master, and whatever I do, no matter how unconventional or unpopular it may be, is done with a clear and confident resoluteness of purpose. When I am feeling creative it effects all spheres of my life. Not just a matter of doing this one creative thing, it effects everything that I do. And consequently, if I'm feeling creatively blocked, that too effects all spheres of my life, reducing my confidence, diminishing my energy, and negatively effecting my health.

To me, creativity is intrinsically connected to feeling healthy and confident. Not just a physical feeling of health and well being, but having a healthy mental outlook. To be creative is like always being in love with the art of creation, with the process of discovery and exploration of inspiration, and the sharing with others what you find in your meetings with the divine, the metaphysical ecstasies in your mind, like a prism reflecting the energies outside of time.

Potential creative energy is activated by a spark of heat and light, where the mind is like a prism and the creative inspiration is like the sun passing through that prism. Where the prism must be positioned in such a way that allows the light to pass through it, otherwise if the sun is obscured, or if the prism it out of alignment with this light, darkness ensues. So it is with creativity.

To create something on your own, developing an original idea, or reinventing an older idea, is very much about tapping into a certain potential energy that exists everywhere in the world at all times, as an invisible quality permeating the mind like air, always there, but not always recognized, but upon making the connection of recognition, it creates a spark that ignites a flame, a flash of insight making the invisible visible, creating an illuminated bridge between the world and the mind and the creative soul fire that lies outside of time.

What happens when this creative link is lost?

If you are a creative person, who suddenly finds yourself feeling creatively blocked, it can be a very disturbing situation to be in. You may feel like you are experiencing an identity crisis, like you have lost your sense of direction, that you no longer know who you are or where you are going. If for instance, you are an artist who paints, not just as a vocation, but whose entire life and sense of identity revolves around being inspired, thinking creatively, and creating art, but who has suddenly lost the inspiration and the ability to paint, what then, and how does such a person reclaim their creative inspiration?

What does a creative person do, who suddenly finds themselves unable to create?

Well from what I've learned of it, creativity, much like insight, cannot be forced. (See: Random Insight #2: Insight Cannot be Forced, and Creative Soul Fire.) All one can do, really, is to improve the conditions that make one more receptive to inspiration, removing any obstacles in the way to make it easier for you to see and to hear and to receive the gift of creative insight.

To create is to feel vibrantly alive, passionate, confident, like a flowing river unimpeded by nothing in its path. For myself, one of the main obstacles to creativity is illness. Feeling poorly, sick, depressed, in pain, too hot, too cold, weak, exhausted, uncomfortable, unable to relax, and unable to focus. If you are feeling sick, or depressed, your creatively will often be blocked. This is because you are distracted by these other concerns.

Therefore, if you are feeling creatively blocked, the best way to reclaim your creativity, is to do everything within your power to make yourself feel better; take a vacation, rest, recuperate, detoxify your body, increase your strength and energy, and improving your overall mood and state of health.

That's all I have to offer about that. Improve your health and the creativity will follow.

Fake Gurus Versus Real Gurus

Want to know what criteria I use to evaluate the authentic teachers (gurus, philosophers, leaders, and prophets) from the false ones?

1. Do they practice what they preach?

2. Do they have healthy habits?

Almost nothing turns me off more than an unhealthy hypocrite.

Anyone who is brilliant, and gives good advice, but who neglects their own health, or who minimizes the importance of health and longevity, is revealing a major lack of wisdom.

Anyone who is all talk, no action; who doesn't strive to attain a balance between theoretical knowledge and experiential knowledge, or who doesn't recognize the value of both philosophy and practice, not merely as a theoretical ideal, but as a lifestyle habit to be implemented in this lifetime, is revealing a major lack of wisdom.

It doesn't mean that such a person doesn't have anything to teach, we all have something to teach, but it reveals gaping holes in their lessons. They are teaching not by example, but by words alone, which are empty of the fruits of experience, empty of the essence of power which would be embodied within the nourishing words of an authentic teacher.

It doesn't mean that an authentic teacher is perfect, or doesn't ever suffer from poor health, or doesn't ever make mistakes, but they at least make the attempt to be healthy, and make the attempt to practice what they preach. And if they fail they don't gloss over their failure to do so as if it's a good thing, and they don't minimize the importance of being healthy and the importance of being consistent in what they say and what they do, simply because they have failed to implement it themselves. Again, anyone who does so, is revealing a major lack of wisdom.

Yeah, I judge. If you are unhealthy as a direct result of poor habits, and make no attempt to regain your health, or if you make major mistakes, and make no attempt to correct them, I tend to have less respect for you. If you are a fat ass, with the bloated physique of a refrigerator, I don't care if you have an IQ of 180, and a PhD in Medicine, you are revealing a major lack of wisdom.

I do not say this to make myself seem like I am so much better. I have my flaws, most notably being judgmental, and drinking alcohol too frequently. I do not consider myself a teacher. While I sometimes play that role, as far as what I know, I am a novice with limited knowledge. I am more of a student than a teacher, but I refuse to recognize the credibility of any teacher, of anyone who gives advice, or who proposes a philosophy for others to follow, who at the same time has unhealthy lifestyle habits, or who does not practice what they preach.

This is the quickest way to gain or lose my respect, and to clearly discern the fake gurus from the real ones.

The Difference Between Experience and Theory

Some people claim that intellectual knowledge is just as good as experiential knowledge, that you don't have to actually practice what you preach to be considered a credible source of advice. That there is little difference between being able to describe how to do something, and actually doing it. That theoretical knowledge is a sufficient substitute for experience.

I really couldn't disagree more.

To me the whole point of a theory is practical application. Certainly both philosophy and practice are important, but I would have to say that experience is even more important than theory, because without practical application, all your theories are little more than unsubstantiated fantasies.

The whole point of brainstorming ideas, of proposing speculative theories, is testing them, and putting them into action, otherwise what's the point? Life is about living, doing, implementing, interacting, not about daydreaming in isolation.

For instance, if you are thirsty, you don't go read a book about water, or visualize a picture of water in your mind, and expect that to quench your thirst. If you read about water, or think about water, you do so for the purpose of helping you actually find water, or to improve your relationship with water (how to find it, purify it, store it, use it); and unless you actually apply this information to the real world, you will die of thirst.

No amount of theorizing on its own has the power to sustain or enhance life. The value of anything depends on whether or not you find it useful. Does it add value to your life? Does it help you in anyway?

Real world experience and the practical application of ideas, is the only thing giving an idea substance, the only thing giving an idea life. An idea is like a seed, and the experiential application of the idea is like a seed bearing fruit. Unless an idea is actually applied, it remains barren, like a disembodied spirit without a body.

If all you do is understand things on an intellectual level, without ever actually applying the things you know experientially, your life will remain very much like that seed that does not bear fruit.

I'll give you another example.

Imagine there are two little boys who both dream of someday riding a bicycle.

1. One day one of the boys is given a bicycle. He rides his bicycle all the time all over the place, to such an extent that he becomes quite an expert cyclist. Not only does he ride his bicycle well, but he knows what foods and drinks provide the most efficient fuel for his body, he knows how to fix his bicycle, how to maintain it, how to prevent it from getting stolen, and also how to travel well over any terrain and in any weather, in the city, in the country, off road, uphill, over long distances, and riding with traffic. Everything he needs to know about bicycles, he learned from riding his bicycle. He may have paged through a few books on bicycle repair, but only through the trial and error practice of actually working on his bicycle and riding it, did he actually learn how to fix his bicycle and ride it well.

2. The other boy did not get a bicycle, but instead he got a pile of books about bicycles. So he read them all and became quite an expert on the subject, memorizing everything that he read. You could ask him any question about bicycles, and most likely he could answer it. Except that the ideas were not really his own, he was just repeating what he read, as he still hadn't actually road a bicycle himself. He hadn't even seen one in person, only pictures and descriptions in a book is the closest he ever got to one. His knowledge of bicycles was very much like a blind man describing color after being told what to say, but because his memory was so good, he spoke like someone who knew what he was talking about.

Who knew bicycles better? The person who actually road them, or the person who only read about them?

Isn't it obvious?

The major difference between these two ways of knowing bicycles, is that one is a spectator, the other is a participant.

One is based on fantasy, the other is based on reality.

Both intellectual theory and practical experience go hand in hand, it's helpful to have both, but the whole point of knowing about something is putting it into practice; otherwise without doing it, you're engaging in little more than a fantasy.

The boy who knows all about bicycles from having read about them, but who has never actually rode one before, can't actually call himself a cyclist. He could call himself an expert in bicycle history and trivia, but he will never be a cyclist until he actually rides a bike.

It's all well and good to speculate upon things, to contemplate abstract philosophical concepts, but unless you can actually apply it to your life in some way, to put the philosophy or theory into practice, it's like doing nothing at all, and where is the value in that?

A person possessing intellectual knowledge without experience, is like someone looking into a reflection of reality as an outside observer, but not actually participating in it. Like watching a dance, but not dancing; like reading about bicycles, but not actually riding one. It's not the same thing. To know something you must participate with it. Trying to do otherwise, is like describing the taste of fruit, based on what you have read about it, without ever tasting it yourself. It's fake. It's hollow. It's like a blind man accurately describing color without ever seeing it for himself, because he's memorized someone else's description of it.

The point is that there is a substantial difference between knowing things from experience and knowing them from a theoretical perspective, and that the only thing that really makes ideas come alive, is when they are applied.

Failure to apply any idea, to demonstrate its practical value to the world (and practical in this sense does not only mean utilitarian, but is anything that adds personal value to your life, including entertainment and the arts) is an indication that you are engaging in a fruitless pursuit, a form of intellectual flatulence. Unfortunately there seems to be a lot of that going around lately, especially here in blog land. If you like gas, all the power to you, otherwise maybe you ought to try something else.

Soul Fire

I thought of the title of this post last night while sitting outside and staring intently into the flame of a candle. I had a terrible sinus headache that came on suddenly in the evening and lasted the entire night. I had hoped that sitting outside in the cool air would help, but while it did stimulate some interesting ideas, I found it impossible to write under those conditions.

Which got me thinking that all creativity, productivity, the ability to contemplate big ideas and to translate these ideas into words, depends on your health. If I were in poor health I don't think I would be able to have a blog. So health is an essential ingredient, but it's not the only ingredient. In order to regularly blog day in and day out, and to actually create something from thin air, requires yet another ingredient, something I call Soul Fire.

I got the idea for soul fire, while thinking about this blog, what I write about here, and the reasons for doing this. No, this is not another Why am I Blogging? post. It's too soon for that. But I was thinking about what really motivates a person to blog? And where does the energy come from to write here? Not only do I not make any money at this, it's largely a thankless endeavor. And so, given those circumstances of zero recognition and minimal feedback, what keeps a person doing this day in and day out?

You know, sometimes I read over my blog and see so many imperfectly written posts, rushed posts, posts that were unclear and didn't express everything I needed to say, that really should have been rewritten, and are somewhat of an embarrassment to read. And other times, I'm pleasantly surprised to find that some of the posts are pretty good. Either way, whether good or bad, it's come to my realization that the fact that I consistently publish anything here at all is an accomplishment in itself. Not many people are able to do this.

The problem is that when you are able to do something with ease, seemingly effortlessly, it's easy to take it for granted, to undervalue your skills; that sometimes you don't know what you had, until you lost it. Having a sinus headache that prevented me from being able to write (despite having ideas to write about) or to even bare the sight of a screen, showed me a whole new appreciation for this.

So I was thinking about this, about this creative impulse underlying blogging, which is more than just an idea, it's a motivating force that propels an idea into action, that translates unspoken thoughts into written words. And the name I came up with for this creative impulse was "Soul Fire". It came to me as an epiphany while staring into the flame of a candle, and thinking about my blog, about my health, and about what motivates me to write here.

The ability to have a blog is not just about having the right hardware and software, you also have to have the right combination of motivation and creative energy; or soul fire. Having ideas to write about and the energy to translate those ideas into words, and the ability to do so day in and day out for absolutely no reward; no money, no recognition, and minimal feedback; you have to admit that's pretty remarkable. I've been called selfish before, but I think this is actually an instance of selflessness; either that or stupidity.

It becomes ever so apparent to me during those times when I am unable to put my ideas into words, that the ability to create requires more than just having ideas and talent, the essential ingredient is soul fire. Soul Fire is the fuel that powers this blog. Without it this blog would not exist. It is not only responsible for the creation of each post, but is the energy that is responsible for keeping the entire blog going.

Soul Fire, a type of applied inspiration, that enables you to create something from nothing. It's not really something you own, it's more like something that you borrow, like a gift from the gods; you don't call it, it calls you, but in order to hear it your health must be crystal clear, or else the reception will be too fuzzy to translate into words.

Nothing can be created without soul fire; and without health the soul fire burns out.

The Difference Between Thinking and Reading, Realizing and Repeating

Our creative faculties are all too often stunted from living in noisy overdeveloped urban environments, and spending too much time indoors watching television and looking at computer screens, but did you know that even reading too much can also be detrimental to your creative faculties?

How so? Well as someone who absolutely loves books, spends a lot of time reading books, and whose life would be significantly diminished without books, what the hell do I mean?

It's not that reading in itself is detrimental. Of course not. Reading is good. Reading is the surest way of rapidly improving your education. But reading too much, without regularly taking time out for personal contemplation, to process what you've read, to think for yourself, to directly listen and observe and ask yourself questions and form your own answers, without doing that, both reading and watching television, or doing anything that becomes a substitute for thinking, can become detrimental to your intellect.

It is possible to be an avid "well read" reader without being a thinker, without being much of a creative, independent, or innovative thinker.

There are a lot of repeaters in this world, many who are overpaid and overrated, people who dutifully repeat whatever the experts say, without really understanding or verifying the facts independently for themselves.

It is possible to appear quite learned and intelligent by merely memorizing what you have read or what you are told by others, to be a walking encyclopedia, a human computer regurgitating assorted facts and trivia, while at the same time being little more than a thoughtless repeater, a programmed robot parroting other peoples ideas without having any actual experiential grasp or understanding of those ideas independent of books or words, or without even having any original thoughts and ideas of your own.

Well maybe you'd counter that there are no original ideas, that there is really nothing new under the sun, everything is borrowed, recycled, rediscovered, and re-exchanged. That all ideas are a collaborative affair, and that nothing is truly independent or original. Maybe so, but in this case, when I speak of an original idea, I mean it in the sense of the idea arising from the quiet contemplation of your own mind. It doesn't matter if that idea was partially shaped and influenced by other ideas not uniquely your own, nor does it matter if you are not the only one, or are only one among thousands receiving the same insight or realization. What matters is the experience of the idea arising seemingly independently within your own mind, rather than being feed a prepackaged version that requires little to no thinking or experiential knowledge.

I hope I inspire you, but ultimately your inspiration is your own, is a personal relationship between the inner you and the outer world. You may feel as if the inspiration comes from outside of yourself, but actually inspiration always originates from within each person. Or rather, it is an experiential connection between the microscopic and macroscopic, between self and the cosmos.

Inspiration is like a radio frequency that's always on, but is only received if you are tuned to the right channel. When you are inspired by someone or something, it's not that they are the source of inspiration, but that all that is happening is that they've helped you turn the channel within yourself in alignment with the frequency of inspiration, that they too are tuned into, but it is up to you how long you maintain the connection, whether you raise or lower the volume, or whether you change to a different channel completely.

All knowledge and insight emerges from a receptive state of mind, but there is a difference between receiving ideas from others in their finished product already translated into words, and having the same ideas emerge independently in your own mind. There is a difference between experiential knowledge obtained on your own, and theoretical knowledge obtained from others. Theoretical knowledge can be experienced if the abstract ideas can be applied to the real world, as theoretical principles visualized affecting objects in space, or otherwise conceptualized having some real world application. And of course experiential knowledge can be translated into theoretical knowledge the very moment it is articulated into words.

If you get most of your ideas from books, from other people, without actually experiencing the insights yourself or applying them to the real world in your own way, how many ideas in your head are actually your own? Not only that, but to what extent do you truly understand and have personally tested what you are reading, and to what extent are you merely repeating?

That's the primary danger of reading too much, that of thinking too little. When reading and absorbing other people's ideas becomes a substitute for thinking, that's what I mean when I say that reading too much can potentially be detrimental to your capacity for independent creative thought.

Read to enhance your mind, not to completely erase your mind and replace it with somebody else's. The goal should be the expansion of consciousness, not the annihilation of consciousness. So by all means don't stop reading, but do consider turning off the television and going outside more.

Just make sure to also spend some time thinking, questioning, contemplating, realizing, and better yet reading the wordless wisdom written in the tapestry of the earth and the sky, and listening to nature's wordless sounds circulating all around, within and without, above and below, and beyond the written word of pseudo experts, thoughtless repeaters, and other overrated clowns.

The Meaning of 'Dissent is Patriotic'

Earlier last month I wrote a post called Dissent is Patriotic. Well, it's been getting some traffic lately, but it was really nothing more than a rambling rant, that didn't really do either the title or the subject justice. 

In fact, I see now that I didn't even explain in that post exactly what that slogan means, because I took it for granted that it was self-evident. 

Well, I'm sure the phrase 'dissent is patriotic' has probably been used by many people, but it is officially attributed to the historian Howard Zinn. That is where I got it from. But what does it mean? I'll tell you what I think it means.

To say that dissent is patriotic does not mean that all dissent is patriotic, or that dissent in and of itself is patriotic. What it does mean is that dissent, which generally means the opposition to official policy, can be patriotic in certain circumstances. And not only that, but the right to disagree with official policy, or the freedom to have a dissenting opinion without fear of suffering unreasonable punishment for disagreeing, is built into the very fabric of a free and democratic society.

For instance, if your country is founded on a specific set of rules and principles, and the people in charge institute actions and policies that violate, undermine, or subvert those rules and principles, dissent (meaning rebellion, opposition, protest, the failure to comply or support the people in charge and their polices), would in such circumstances be considered patriotic.

Patriotism simply means love and support of country. By country we mean not only the land and its people, but our collective society, our culture, our government, and the founding principles and laws of our nation.

But laws can and do change. Just because something is lawful, doesn't necessarily mean that it is true, or just, or morally sound. For instance, slavery was once legal. At the time of legalized slavery, would you say it is patriotic to support the institution of slavery? If the founding principles of your country support slavery, than perhaps you could. However, if you believe that the institution of slavery violates what your country stands for, than supporting slavery would in fact be quite unpatriotic.

If you believe that all men and women are created equal, and that all human beings have a natural born right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and such a belief is written into the very laws and principles that your country was founded on, support for slavery, or anything else that opposes those principles, would be inimical to not only patriotism, but the ideals of truth, justice, and democracy.

So in such a circumstance those opposing the legalized institution of slavery, would be a good example of dissent being patriotic.

In a society based on democracy and the rule of law, patriotism does not mean uncritically supporting your country, right or wrong, no matter what. Country in this sense meaning government, your elected representatives, their official policies, and the military. Patriotism means supporting certain fundamental founding principles, values, and laws inherent to a democratic society, and holding your elected officials accountable to them.

If on the other hand a democratic nation is for instance taken over by a fascist tyrannical coup, that subverts democracy and the rule of law, it would not be patriotic to support such an administration's policies or military engagements.

So in conclusion, to reiterate my points: The phrase 'dissent is patriotic' basically means an opposition to tyranny and evil, corruption and injustice, and the abuse of power in high places, while actively seeking to change the people and policies responsible for subverting democracy and the rule of law.

The Difference Between Solitude and Loneliness

Here's a great quote from The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt about the difference between solitude and loneliness:

The lonely man finds himself surrounded by others with whom he cannot establish contact or to whose hostility he is exposed.

The solitary man, on the contrary, is alone and therefore "can be together with himself." In solitude, in other words, I am "by myself", together with my self, and therefore two-in-one, whereas in loneliness I am actually one, deserted by all others.

All thinking, strictly speaking, is done in solitude and is a dialogue of thought.

Solitude can became loneliness; this happens when all by myself I am deserted by my own self. Solitary men have always been in danger of loneliness, when they can no longer find the redeeming grace of companionship...

To me this description in many ways parallels the differences between introversion and shyness. With introversion as an orientation of thinking more akin to solitude, and shyness more akin to loneliness. In that someone who is shy, may wish to be with others, but is afraid to reach out to them, and if ending up alone feels lonely; whereas an introvert being fully content with themselves, may selectively choose to be alone but without feeling lonely at all; with solitude being a positive experience of being alone, loneliness being a negative one.

I myself am a solitary person. Not a lonely person. I've never felt lonely before in my life. Not even as a little kid, when I was for awhile the new kid on the block who didn't have any friends. I've always felt perfectly at peace with myself, my greatest solace being nature and books. I've never felt completely alone because I've always felt a deep sense of companionship and connectedness with the earth and the sky and the greater universe.

If I were locked up in solitary confinement without a book or a window, that would be hell, but so long as I either have access to a good book, or can be outside and see blue sky and stars and green grass and trees, and hear the sounds of nature and the sounds of birds singing, even by myself I wouldn't feel alone, wouldn't be lonely.

Of course that could all change in the blink of an eye, where solitude could easily digress into loneliness, where strength could be overtaken by weakness, where peace of mind could dissolve into misery...where if this connection to love is severed completely, all that would remain in its place is a feeling of separation, alienation, and isolation.

All it takes is a split second for your attitude to change completely, where your entire world could be turned upside down and inside out.

Attitude really is everything.

In order to never lose this feeling of connectedness, this "redeeming grace of companionship" with the world, it requires an attitude of openness and goodwill toward the whole world.

So that even in the absence of human companionship, you will never feel entirely alone, and even in the absence of housing or material possessions, you will never feel entirely homeless or deprived, but feel at home and among friends wherever you may be, even when alone you'll experience a peaceful solitude without loneliness.

Nature Solitude

I find it very therapeutic to spend at least a few minutes outside everyday, just listening and observing nature, without uttering a single sound.

No talking, no conversation, just listening to the sounds of nature, and observing whatever is within your field of space, be it a leaf, a flower, a rock, a bug, the birds, the trees, the sky. Just spend some time with it, taking note of everything, soaking it all in, noticing what thoughts and feelings it triggers. Therein lies the fruits of nature's inspiration.

Observing nature without speaking is important, because when you are speaking you are not listening. It's good to take a break from human speech from time to time, and the same can be said of the intrusive noise of machines, take a break whenever you can.

That's the one thing I dislike the most about computers, is the noise they make, that annoying hum, it surely must have some kind of subconscious influence on your bodies brainwaves and biorhythms. There's got to be a study somewhere on it, if not, there should be.

I try to sit outside in silence in a mindful eyes-wide-open meditation of nature on a daily basis. Sometimes it's hard for me to find some peace and quiet. The people I live with talk incessantly, sometimes I have to wear earplugs just to get a bit of peace of quiet around the house. Which is another reason why I often stay up well past midnight, because its the only time when the house is quiet.

In order to be able to hear more clearly my own inner voice of wisdom and intuitive insight, I have a profound need for solitude, silence and nature. We all have access to intuitive insight, it's our birthright. Problem is, many people out of habit and distraction, have conditioned themselves to block it out, to such an extent, that this ability calcifies and the connection is lost.

There are all kinds of distractions in our world that interfere with psychic perception. To me, the sound of machines, especially those of an electrical nature, create a sort of artificial fog, made up of noise pollution and electromagnetic fields, that interfere with and obscures our capacity for intuitive insight.

Of course machines and computers have their useful purpose, but their usefulness comes at a price to our health.

How many people look closely into the depths of their soul, the depths of their heart, the depths of their mind? How many people spend hours of the night looking up at the night time sky without naming what they see, just simply observing it as if it were the first time they beheld it, having no preconceived notion of what lies out there, just looking, listening, and feeling the star filled sky with your eyes?

There are many benefits to be gained from this. Inspiration. Clarity of Vision. Insight. Foresight. Depth of Perspective.

When two objects meet, there is an instant communication, an exchange of energies. When you look up at the sky, in a way, the sky is also looking back down at you. Everybody is communicating with everyone and everything they encounter, even if there is no exchange of words, or direct touch, whatever your senses apprehend there is a mutual exchange of communication occurring.

So make it a point to spend some time alone with nature, listening without speaking, observing without teaching, soaking in the psychic healing, that comes from tuning in and realigning yourself with the resonance of the earth and the sky.

The Lonely Road to Enlightenment

Knowing that this blog most likely will be obliterated someday, I feel that I have free reign to write anything here at all, anything. Imagine that, such open-ended freedom, such unlimited potential and possibility, to create anything you can imagine, or at least to create the idea of anything, if not the actual thing itself.

So I sit outside in my courtyard, though it's not mine really, I'm just a squatter here, occupying this space on borrowed time. But it is a courtyard nonetheless, which may as well be the courtyard to a royal palace, where I sit in relative peace and quiet and comfort, reposing amongst the cactuses and flowers and hummingbirds and statues.

I sit out here at different times, both day and night, but lately I've come to prefer the night, because it is cooler and quieter outside, and I enjoy being alone with the night under a star filled sky. Watching the stars inspires all sorts of philosophical thinking, and triggers many more questions than answers. I wonder if I will ever transcend my human limitations, and evolve into a more enlightened being, someone who is no longer controlled by feelings of selfishness, or held back by negative thinking and emotions.

So let's just say, what if? What if you were enlightened?

To put it bluntly, let's say that just when you think you've gotten your shit together, in terms of personal growth, psychological maturity, self-knowledge, and self-mastery, that you have become an enlightened being. That you see and understand everything with crystal clear lucidity. You know yourself, you know other people, you know the world, and you know exactly what you want, what needs to be done, and how to do it and why.

You have a clear vision. You see the problem and you know the solution. Not idle speculation. Not a theory. Not maybe this will work, but knowing that this will definitely work, that this is what needs to be done, and it is the best course of action to take. There is no hint of selfishness. No personal ambition. No lust for personal wealth, power, or recognition, just a selfless act of charity, of providing a solution to a problem, that would benefit the entire world.

Let's say this is the case. What happens next? Then the reality may sink in that you suddenly find yourself an enlightened being living in a very unenlightened world. Most of your fellow human beings are not enlightened, and they are not receptive to your message. You have the solution to their problem, but nobody is willing to listen. It's like in that movie Idiocracy. The idiots won't listen to reason. It's an upside down world, where the fools rule, and the enlightened are either ridiculed and dismissed as fools, or they're assassinated.

So what does an enlightened person do in this situation? How does the wise person relate to the foolish? How does the reasonable person reason with the unreasonable? How does an enlightened person communicate their message to an unreceptive audience? What do you do when you give excellent advice and wise council, but your words go unheeded? Or when you know exactly what to do to improve the lives of others, and yet nobody will listen?

Obviously I myself am not enlightened, because if I were I suppose I would have the answer to these questions.

But I do experience temporary moments of lucidity, enough to know that the more you know, the more you see that other people do not know. That the wiser you become, the more foolishness you see around you. That the less selfish you become, the more selfishness you see in others. And that the more you perfect yourself, the more aware you become of the world's imperfections.

In other words, you are where you want to be, but the rest of the world is not up to speed. So what do you do? You've perfected yourself and attained enlightenment, but you still have to deal with an imperfect and unenlightened world. How do you manage in this situation?

Are you a kind hearted person, having removed all traces of hatred and maliciousness from your heart? What happens when you are confronted with someone who is filled with cruelty and hate? How does that affect you? How does it affect you when you show someone compassion, when you show them loving kindness, and they spit in your face?

What happens when you have purged yourself of all your lower qualities, removed all traces of selfishness, hatred, jealousy, dishonesty, only to encounter these qualities in another? What happens when you are doing everything right, acting perfectly noble, kind, loving, truthful, and just, but you are treated like shit?

What happens when your kindness is returned with cruelty? When your love is returned with hate? When you help someone, and they hurt you in return?

What should an enlightened person do in such instances? How does the wise person get through to the unwise? How does the enlightened person enlighten the unenlightened?

I suppose only an enlightened person would know.